Japanese voters will head to the polling
stations this week. It seems as though Abe Shinzo, the current Prime Minister
of Japan will win the elections is a renewed massive support for the LDP and
his Abenomics reforms. As I have argued previously, Abe Shinzo has done this
very counterintuitive move to call snap elections when he already had such an
overwhelming majority in both chambers of the Diet, out of pure political
calculation. His move had nothing to do with economics really – not that this isn't
the most pressing issue in front of Japan. It is! But, the real motive lies in
the domain of party politics. More importantly, these are intra-party politics. With only a few days to go, the most authoritative
world publications, such as the FT
and the Economist,
unabatedly continue to throw weight behind the claim that the elections are a
referendum on Abeconomics. But they are not. The Japanese economy is sliding
badly, and much has to do in some way or another with the Abenomics…

In December 2012 the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan (LDP - 自民党) decisively won the Lower House (衆議院) elections for the national Diet (国会), securing 294 out of the 480 seats. Between its MPs, and the 31 MPs of its coalitional partner, the New Komeito Party (公明党), Abe Shinzo’s government commanded a comfortable majority of just over 2/3 of the Lower House. In subsequent elections for the Upper House (参議院) in July 2013 LDP gained 114 seats, and the New Komeito Party – 20. All in all, this is a very strong majority, which can guarantee a comfortable governing of Abe’s cabinet. Why then last week the Prime Minister called snap elections for the Lower House – an act that defies the normal logic of democratic governance?There are two competing, albeit not mutually exclusive explanations.

Mythic origins or original sin? Euroscepticism and an ever closer realityLIUBOMIR TOPALOFF25 April 2014
Euroscepticism is a strategically invented social construct – much like the myth of “ever closer union” itself – to capture and channel growing popular discontent with the aftermath of the European integration process.
The European elections are fast approaching, and with them the first time spectacle in the history of the European Parliament (EP) that we see eurosceptic parties with unprecedented popular representation. Based on pre-election estimates by PollWatch, what with the proposed alliance of right-wing eurosceptics led by Le Pen’s Front National and Geert Wilders’ PVV, the centre-right eurosceptics currently united in the EFD and led by UKIP’s Nigel Farrage, still free-floating extremists such as Jobbik, Attacka, Golden Dawn and the like, and the parochial hodgepodge of far left eurosceptics in the United Left/Nordic

And so, the cards were laid down on the table. As Moscow has
ordered its troops from Ukraine’s border to return back from “military
exercise,” and we hear more about diplomacy, and less about military
intervention, then the confrontation with Russia clearly begins to disentangle.
There should be no doubt that the West (i.e. U.S.) has managed to push Mr.
Putin into the corner with not to many options left. But what is at stake, and
how was it bargained? In my opinion one should look far beyond the current
geographic focus of the conflict. But to understand how far and why, a
necessary prelude is necessary (spoiler alert; if you don’t care about
elaborations and bla-bla, scroll down directly to the last two paragraphs).

Ukraine was, sort of speaking, the Full House President
Obama pulled in the game just when Mr. Putin was finally getting a grip of his own
game. The West seemed pressured by Mr. Putin to negotiate, and renegotiate on
every single issue that has plagued American foreign p…